Persuasive Argument Analysis

320 Words2 Pages
The most persuasive argument for the petitioner is that UT’s rationale for the use of race lacks the requisite clarity to survive the application of strict scrutiny. Since the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications are to be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny. Therefore, when government decisions take into account race it must serve a compelling government interest. The petitioner’s least convincing argument is that UT’s consideration of face is too modest to be constitutional. Race is supposed to have a modest impact and holistic and individualized which was approved in the Grutter and Bakke cases. The first question I would ask the petitioner is whether or not she believes she would have been admitted to UT’s Fall 2008 class if she were a minority. I would also ask her what restitution she is seeking if the Court rules in her favor.…show more content…
The petitioner’s requested relief would not redress the damage that she allegedly suffered from UT-Austin. The petitioner requested declaratory and injunctive relief which would have redressed her alleged injuries when she was still interested in UT, but her request became debatable when she graduated from LSU in 2012. The petitioner could have brought a class action for future applicants, but she did not. (Gratz v. Bollinger) On the other hand, the respondents least compelling argument is that UT has asserted a compelling interest in considering race. Before the petitioner filed the lawsuit against UT, they never bothered to clearly state their compelling interest in educational diversity with clarity. (Regents of Univ. of Cal. V. Bakke) I would ask how taking race into account promotes diversity. Then, I would ask what the educational benefits of diversity are. In conclusion, I do not have any alternatives for either party in this
Open Document